DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species (C), in the reply filed on 2/25/2021 is acknowledged.
Claims 73-74 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 04/22/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 75 and 79-80 have been canceled.
Claims 82-84 have been added.
Claims 62-74, 76-78, and 81-84 are pending.
Claims 73-74 are withdrawn.
Claims 62, 69-73, 76, 78, and 81 have been amended.
The cancellation of claims 75 and 79-80 obviates the rejections of claims 75 and 79-80 set forth in the last Office Action.
The amendment of claim 72 overcomes the objection of claim 72 set forth in the last Office Action.
The amendments of claim 71 have overcome the rejection of claim 71 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the last Office Action. The rejection has been withdrawn.
The amendments of claims 62, 69-73, 76, 78, and 81 have overcome:
the rejections of claims 62-64, 67-72, 75, and 78-79 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20180179238 A1),
the rejection of claim 77 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20180179238 A1) as applied to claims 62-64, 67-72, 75, and 78-79 above, further in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1, hereafter Kim),
the rejection of claim 80 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20180179238 A1) as applied to claims 62-64, 67-72, 75, and 78-79 above, further in view of Kai et al. (US 2010/0187977 A1, hereafter Kai),
the rejection of claim 81 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20180179238 A1) as applied to claims 62-64, 67-72, 75, and 78-79 above, further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012, hereafter Pang),
the rejections of claims 62-64, 67-72, 75-76, and 78-79 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2019/0074457 A1, hereafter Choi) in view of Acharya et al. (“Effect of Selenium Substitution on Intersystem Crossing in π-Conjugated Donor−Acceptor−Donor Chromophores: The LUMO Matters the Most”, J. Phys. Chem. Letts 2016, vol. 7, page 693-697, hereafter Acharya),
the rejection of claim 77 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2019/0074457 A1) in view of Acharya et al. (“Effect of Selenium Substitution on Intersystem Crossing in π-Conjugated Donor−Acceptor−Donor Chromophores: The LUMO Matters the Most”, J. Phys. Chem. Letts 2016, vol. 7, page 693-697) as applied to claims 62-64, 67-72, 75-76, and 78-79 above, further in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1),
the rejection of claim 80 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2019/0074457 A1) in view of Acharya et al. (“Effect of Selenium Substitution on Intersystem Crossing in π-Conjugated Donor−Acceptor−Donor Chromophores: The LUMO Matters the Most”, J. Phys. Chem. Letts 2016, vol. 7, page 693-697) as applied to claims 62-64, 67-72, 75-76, and 78-79 above, further in view of Kai et al. (US 2010/0187977 A1),
the rejection of claim 81 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2019/0074457 A1) in view of Acharya et al. (“Effect of Selenium Substitution on Intersystem Crossing in π-Conjugated Donor−Acceptor−Donor Chromophores: The LUMO Matters the Most”, J. Phys. Chem. Letts 2016, vol. 7, page 693-697) as applied to claims 62-64, 67-72, 75-76, and 78-79 above, further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012),
the provisional rejections of claims 62-64, 66-67, 69-72, and 78-81 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16, 19, and 20 of copending Application No. 17/662,434 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘434) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 87-90 of the reply filed 04/22/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 62-64, 67-72, 75, and 78-79 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, the rejection of claim 77 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee/Kim, the rejection of claim 80 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee/Kai, the rejection of claim 81 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee/Pang set forth in the Office Action of 01/22/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the rejection based on Lee should be withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The rejections have been withdrawn, rendering this argument is moot.
Applicant’s arguments see page 90-93 of the reply filed 04/22/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 62-64, 67-72, 75-76, and 78-79 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi/Acharya, the rejection of claim 77 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi/Acharya/Kim, the rejection of claim 80 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi/Acharya/Kai, the rejection of claim 81 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi/Acharya/Pang set forth in the Office Action of 01/22/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the rejection based on Choi should be withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The rejections have been withdrawn, rendering this argument is moot.
Applicant’s arguments see page 93-95 of the reply filed 04/22/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 62-65, 67-68, 70-71, 78-79, and 81 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita et al. (US 2009/0079340 A1, hereafter Kinoshita) in view of Acharya, the rejection of claims 66 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita in view of Acharya and Itoh, the rejection of claim 77 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita in view of Acharya and Kim, the rejection of claim 80 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita in view of Acharya and Kai set forth in the Office Action of 01/22/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that Applicant has amended claims 62, 78, and 81 to recite that if L1 is absent, then one of moiety A or moiety D is not 5-membered heterocyclic ring having an N ring atom that coordinates to the metal M such that the compound of Kinoshita and Acharya cannot be formed.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The rejections refer to the Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya (section 117 of the last Office Action). The Compound reads on all the limitation of the Formula I of the amended claim because in the compound L1 can be C(Me)2 as shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
196
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Similarly, the Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya and Itoh (section 142) reads on all the limitation of the Formula I.
PNG
media_image2.png
203
757
media_image2.png
Greyscale
At least for this reason, the argument is not found persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments see page 95-96 of the reply filed 04/22/2026 regarding the provisional rejections of claims 62-64, 66-67, 69-72, and 78-81 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16, 19, and 20 of copending Application No. 17/662,434 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘434) set forth in the Office Action of 01/22/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the provisional double patenting rejection should be withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The rejections have been withdrawn, rendering this argument is moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 76 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 76, claim 76 claims specific embodiment of the compound of claim 62. However, some embodiment including at least the following compound is not encompassed by the compound of claim 62 because the benzoselenopheno fused to pyridine does not satisfy any of the provisos i) and ii).
PNG
media_image3.png
168
331
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Currently claim 3 is dependent from claim 62. Therefore, claim 3 fails to include all the limitations of the claims upon which they depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 62-65, 67-68, 70-71, 78, and 81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita et al. (US 2009/0079340 A1, hereafter Kinoshita) in view of Acharya et al. (“Effect of Selenium Substitution on Intersystem Crossing in π-Conjugated Donor−Acceptor−Donor Chromophores: The LUMO Matters the Most”, J. Phys. Chem. Letts 2016, vol. 7, page 693-697).
Regarding claims 62-65, 67, 70-71, 78, and 81, Kinoshita discloses a compound represented by Formula 1 and used for an organic light emitting device ([0007], [0008]). Kinoshita teaches subgenus Formula 2 ([0030]) and exemplifies Compound 2 ([0152]).
PNG
media_image4.png
283
779
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In the Compound 2, the sulfur atoms at the positions corresponding to Z41 and Z44 of Formula 2 does not read on the limitation of Applicant’s Formula I of the instant claims; however, Kinoshita does teach that Z41 and Z44 of Formula 2 can be selenium ([0041]).
Acharya teaches that selenium has larger atomic radius, larger dipole moment, larger polarizability than sulfur such that band gap and optical properties can be tuned by replacing sulfur with selenium (page 693, col. 1, lines 10-16).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 2 of Kinoshita by substituting the sulfur atoms at the positions corresponding to Z41 and Z44 of Formula 2 with selenium, as taught by Kinoshita and Acharya.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide larger atomic radius, larger dipole moment, larger polarizability, and tunability of band gap and optical properties, based on the teaching of Acharya.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Both S and Se are alternative options for the variables Z41 and Z44 of Formula 2. Substitution of S with Se would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image1.png
196
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya, meeting all the limitations of claims 62-65, 67, and 70-71.
Kinoshita does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising the Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya; however, Kinoshita does teach that the compound can be used for an organic light emitting device ([0007]). Kinoshita teaches the structure of the OLED device comprising an anode, an emissive layer (a carbazole compound MCP as a host, the compound of Lee as a dopant), and a cathode ([0236], [0239]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya by incorporating it into the emissive layer with a host compound of MCP of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Kinoshita.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of dopants of Kinoshita in the OLED of Kinoshita would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya comprising an anode, an emissive layer (CBP as a host, Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya as a dopant), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claim 78.
Kinoshita does not disclose a specific display device comprising the Organic light emitting device of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya; however, Kinoshita does teach that the OLED device can be used for a display device ([0244]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Kinoshita.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of OLED devices in a display device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a consumer product (i.e. display device) comprising the Organic light emitting device of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya, meeting all the limitations of claim 81.
Regarding claim 68, the Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya reads on all the features of claim 62 as outlined above.
The linking group dimethyl methylene at the position corresponding to A21 of Formula 2 of Kinoshita is not oxygen, which does not read on the limitation of the claim; however, Kinoshita does teach A21 can be a divalent linking group ([0047]) and exemplifies oxygen as the divalent linking group (Compound 6 in [0152]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya by substituting the dimethyl methylene divalent liking group at position A21 of Formula 2 with oxygen, as taught by Kinoshita.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the divalent linking group with oxygen at position A21 of Formula 2 of Kinoshita would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya (2) which has identical structure as Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya except the dimethyl methylene linking group at position A21 of Formula 2 of Kinoshita is oxygen.
Claims 66 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita et al. (US 20090079340 A1) in view of Acharya et al. (“Effect of Selenium Substitution on Intersystem Crossing in π-Conjugated Donor−Acceptor−Donor Chromophores: The LUMO Matters the Most”, J. Phys. Chem. Letts 2016, vol. 7, page 693-697) as applied to claims 62-65, 67-68, 70-71, 78, and 81 above, further in view of Itoh et al. (US 2007/0103060 A1, hereafter Itoh).
Regarding claim 66, the Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya reads on all the features of claim 62 as outlined above.
PNG
media_image5.png
213
430
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya is directed to the compound of Formula 1 of Kinoshita. The structure at the position corresponding to Y2 of Formula 1 of Kinoshita is a single bond, which does not read on the limitation of the claim; however, Kinoshita does teach that Y2 can be an oxygen atom ([0025]).
Ito discloses a Pt complex comprising a tetradentate ligand and used for an organic light emitting device ([0001], [0015]).
Incorporation of an oxygen bridge instead of the covalent bond between the ring carbon of the benzene and the central Pt atom in a tetradentate Pt complex is known in the art as taught by Itoh (see examples in [0093] including the following compound).
PNG
media_image6.png
112
201
media_image6.png
Greyscale
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya by substituting the single bond at the position corresponding to Y2 of Formula 1 of Kinoshita with an oxygen bridge, as taught by Kinoshita and Itoh.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the single bond with an oxygen bridge at the position corresponding to Y2 of Formula 1 of Kinoshita would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). There are finite number of bridge structures used as Y2 in Formula 1 of Kinoshita. The selection of oxygen would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
The modification provides Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya and Itoh.
PNG
media_image2.png
203
757
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 77 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita et al. (US 20090079340 A1) in view of Acharya et al. (“Effect of Selenium Substitution on Intersystem Crossing in π-Conjugated Donor−Acceptor−Donor Chromophores: The LUMO Matters the Most”, J. Phys. Chem. Letts 2016, vol. 7, page 693-697) as applied to claims 62-65, 67-68, 70-71, 78, and 81 above, further in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1).
Regarding claim 77, the Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya reads on all the features of claim 62 as outlined above.
The compound does not comprise any deuterium atom.
Kim discloses Ir complex compound used for an organic light emitting device (abstract).
Kim teaches that deuterium has grater atomic mass, lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, and lower van der Waals force, and lower intermolecular collision by vibration such that the substitution of hydrogen of an Ir complex with deuterium provides improved luminescence efficiency, luminance, current efficiency, power efficiency, and thermal stability ([0021]-[0022]).
Kim exemplifies deuterated complex ([0035]) wherein all the hydrogen atom directly bonded to the aromatic and heteroaromatic rings of the N^C ligand (i.e. phenyl pyridine) are substituted by deuterium.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya by substituting the hydrogen atoms of the benzothiazole and pyrazole rings of the tetradentate ligand with deuterium, as taught by Kim.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide greater atomic mass, lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, and lower van der Waals force, and lower intermolecular collision by vibration such that the Ir complex provides improved luminescence efficiency, luminance, current efficiency, power efficiency, and thermal stability, based on the teaching of Kim.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya and Kim which has identical structure as the Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya except all the hydrogen atoms of the benzothiazole and pyrazole rings are substituted by deuterium.
Claims 62-64, 67-72, 76, 78, and 82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min et al. (US 2021/0043856 A1, hereafter Min) in view of Lee et a. (US 2018/0179238 A1, hereafter Lee) and Acharya et al. (“Effect of Selenium Substitution on Intersystem Crossing in π-Conjugated Donor−Acceptor−Donor Chromophores: The LUMO Matters the Most”, J. Phys. Chem. Letts 2016, vol. 7, page 693-697).
Regarding claims 62-64, 67-72, 76, 78, and 82, Min discloses a compound represented by Formula 1 and used for an organic light emitting device ([0006], [0008]) and exemplifies Compound 57 [0145]).
PNG
media_image7.png
339
665
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Min does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound 57; however, Min does teach that the compound can be used in the organic layer of an organic light emitting device ([0031]). Min teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an emissive layer comprising the compound of Min as a dopant, and a cathode ([0290]-[0293]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 57 of Min by incorporating it into the emissive layer of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Min.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the emissive dopants of Min in the OLED of Min would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides an anode, an emissive layer (Compound 57 of Min), and a cathode.
The Compound 57 of Min has similar structure as Applicant’s specific embodiment of claim 76 (the 3rd compound of claim 76, hereafter Compound A).
PNG
media_image8.png
319
653
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The only difference between two compounds is that the sulfur atom of the Compound 57 of Min is required to be selenium in Applicant’s Compound A; however, substitution of sulfur with selenium would have been obvious because they are in the same group of the periodic table. Furthermore, selenium and sulfur are used interchangeably in Pt complexes which are used for an organic light emitting device, as taught by Lee (see Compounds 53 and 54 in [0184]).
PNG
media_image9.png
404
536
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Acharya teaches that selenium has larger atomic radius, larger dipole moment, larger polarizability than sulfur such that band gap and optical properties can be tuned by replacing sulfur with selenium (page 693, col. 1, lines 10-16).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 57 of Min by substituting the sulfur atom with a selenium atom, as taught by Lee and Acharya.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide larger atomic radius, larger dipole moment, larger polarizability, and tunability of band gap and optical properties, based on the teaching of Acharya.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Compound of Min as modified by Lee and Acharya which has identical structure as Applicant’s Compound A, meeting all the limitations of claims 62-64, 67-72, 76, and 82.
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Min as modified by Lee and Acharya comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound of Min as modified by Lee and Acharya as a dopant), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claim 78.
Claim 77 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min et al. (US 2021/0043856 A1) in view of Lee et a. (US 2018/0179238 A1) and Acharya et al. (“Effect of Selenium Substitution on Intersystem Crossing in π-Conjugated Donor−Acceptor−Donor Chromophores: The LUMO Matters the Most”, J. Phys. Chem. Letts 2016, vol. 7, page 693-697) as applied to claims 62-64, 67-72, 76, 78, and 82 above, further in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1).
Regarding claim 77, the Compound of Min as modified by Lee and Acharya reads on all the features of claim 62 as outlined above.
The compound does not comprise any deuterium atom; however, Lee does teach the substituents at the positions corresponding to R1, R2, and R10 to R50 of Formula 1 can be deuterium ([0017]).
Kim discloses Ir complex compound used for an organic light emitting device (abstract).
Kim teaches that deuterium has grater atomic mass, lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, and lower van der Waals force, and lower intermolecular collision by vibration such that the substitution of hydrogen of an Ir complex with deuterium provides improved luminescence efficiency, luminance, current efficiency, power efficiency, and thermal stability ([0021]-[0022]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Min as modified by Lee and Acharya by substituting all the hydrogen atoms with deuterium, as taught by Choi and Kim.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide greater atomic mass, lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, and lower van der Waals force, and lower intermolecular collision by vibration such that the Ir complex provides improved luminescence efficiency, luminance, current efficiency, power efficiency, and thermal stability, based on the teaching of Kim.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the substituents R1, R2, and R10 to R50 of Formula 1 of Min with deuterium would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Min as modified by Lee, Acharya, and Kim which has identical structure as the Compound of Min as modified by Lee and Acharya except all the hydrogen atoms are substituted by deuterium.
Claim 81 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min et al. (US 2021/0043856 A1) in view of Lee et a. (US 2018/0179238 A1) and Acharya et al. (“Effect of Selenium Substitution on Intersystem Crossing in π-Conjugated Donor−Acceptor−Donor Chromophores: The LUMO Matters the Most”, J. Phys. Chem. Letts 2016, vol. 7, page 693-697) as applied to claims 62-64, 67-72, 76, 78, and 82 above, further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012).
Regarding claim 81, the Organic light emitting device of Min as modified by Lee and Acharya reads on all the features of claim 78 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode, an emissive layer (Compound of Min as modified by Lee and Acharya as a dopant), and a cathode.
Min in view of Lee and Acharya does not disclose a specific flexible display device comprising the Organic light emitting device of Min as modified by Lee and Acharya.
Pang discloses a display device (“flexible active matrix OLED display” in Fig. 3) comprising an organic light-emitting device (“C: OLED” in Fig. 3) and a thin film transistor (“thin-film transistor”; “B: TFT” in Fig. 3).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Min as modified by Lee and Acharya by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Pang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a flexible display device based on the teaching of Pang.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the organic light emitting devices in a flexible display would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a consumer product (i.e. flexible display device) comprising the Organic light emitting device of Min as modified by Lee and Acharya.
Claim Objections / Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 83-84 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As outlined above, Kinoshita is a representation of the closest prior arts. As described in more detail above, Kinoshita teaches a tetradentate Pt complex comprising selenazole rings; however, Kinoshita does not teach a Pt complex comprising a specific ligand as required in the instant claims 83-84.
As outlined above, Min in view of Lee and Acharya is a representation of the closest prior arts. As described in more detail above, Min in view of Lee and Acharya teaches a tetradentate Pt complex comprising a selenophene ring; however, Min in view of Lee and Acharya does not teach a Pt complex comprising a specific ligand as required in the instant claims 83-84.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JENNIFER BOYD can be reached at (571)272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights